Trump Attorney: Trump should be able to review and withhold seized evidence

[Zero-Point]

What do you expect from a lawyer that basically got his degree from Bazooka Joe Legal University?

[Tufty 🌹]

Reminds me of the times in the 80s and early 90s where defence solicitors would refuse to enter a plea until all the prosecution's evidence was disclosed, so they could advise their client whether or not to plead guilty...

[Alice]

While I agree with the basic thought, here we see a working example of why it's a stupid idea. Then again wysiwyg editors are a bad idea to begin with. They give less control for more "convenience" but it's only convenient up until it doesn't work properly. And with the lack of control it's difficult to actually work around those issues.

[Silence]

I would feel the same way if it were something that could bypass the 5th amendment.

I'm not seeing why being uncomfortable with the act, but agreeing that it's most likely warranted in this case is so controversial. Am I supposed to be giddy instead because I don't like Trump?
This changes nothing.

[xfb]

This isn't bypassing attorney-client privilege. This is hard-coded basic functionality of attorney-client privilege.

Attorney-client privilege is conditional. Conducting criminal activity with your lawyer is one of the conditions that voids attorney-client privilege. See Clark vs. United States: "There is a privilege protecting communications between attorney and client. The privilege takes flight if the relation is abused. A client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of a fraud will have no help from the law. He must let the truth be told."

If you're uncomfortable with attorney-client privilege as a concept, OK I guess? Ostensibly, the system is working as designed. If you'd rather allow attorney-client privilege in cases where criminals conspire with their lawyers to commit crimes, I guess that's a valid opinion, but I think that's horseshit.

If you're trying to find a neutral way to approach these events, this isn't it. You talking about legal situations that aren't at play in this context is only propping up Trump and his cronies. You're functionally helping them sow confusion and distrust.

[404 Not Found]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/michael-cohen-donald-trump-seized-documents-judge?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=fb_us#link_time=1523926489

Denied.

[sir whoopsalot]

Maybe it's because you've yet to make a solid point on why this makes you uncomfortable?

All you've said so far is 'wow, this is kinda bad even though it's probably done with good reason but it's still kinda bad'.

[VinLAURiA]

Hah! Get dunked, you spray-tanned howler monkey!

[Solo Wing]

Ladies and Gents, the system works.....for the time being. Glad the judge had enough sense to see how stupid and nonsensical that request was.

[Big Dumb Patriot]

Apparently, the judge we as going to allow Cohen's attorneys to keep the name of his third client, Sean Hannity, secret in a sealed court filing. At that point, an attorney for the New York Times and CNN approached the bench and argued that the public had a right to know, successfully convincing the judge that transparency was necessary. What a champion that guy is.